Lovers of the game of go know from experience that thinking too long often leads to a bad move. That's how most Koreans might have felt watching President Lee Myung-bak's minor Cabinet reshuffle Monday. Actually, however, the President seems to have spent the past 27 days not thinking about how to reform his troubled administration and restore popular trust but how to get out of his predicament with minimal change, or the pretense of reform.
This is not to say the new ministerial nominees are unqualified to take up the jobs, nor that the three cabinet ministers involved are too few to satisfy popular expectation of a larger personnel shakeup.
Really disappointing was President Lee has failed to replace what most had sought to be changed _ his economic team, particularly the finance minister.
The replacement of the agricultural, health and welfare, and education ministers was only natural, as they bungled state administration in their respective lines of duty, including the resumption of U.S. beef imports. Considering the two-month-long daily candlelit vigils targeted not only food safety issues but also the aggravated economy, the first person to go should have been Finance Minister Kang Man-soo. Little wonder the ministerial replacement is being compared to a mere pruning while leaving the main trunk intact.
Worse still was the President's move to dismiss the second man at the finance ministry, making him responsible for a wrong foreign exchange policy. This has set a new ― quite incomprehensible ― precedent of disciplining a deputy instead of the top decision-maker for a policy failure.
So people rightly suspect President Lee has yet to give up his growth-oriented economic policy, called ``MB-nomics,'' by leaving Kang in his post as its symbol. More cynical groups even link Kang's survival to the fact he attends the same church as Lee.
It was only recently that Finance Minister Kang hinted at suspending the heavy real estate tax, and reconsidering the controversial Grand Canal construction, ideas closely related with an economic stimulus package, only to revoke them later in the face of popular criticism.
It has become all but certain that Lee and Kang share the economic philosophy of decades ago, namely government-led development. In short, the President should change his economic ideas and policy, but this will not be possible without changing his top economic policymaker for someone who is the exact reverse of Kang.
All this reconfirms President Lee's inclination to regard public opinion not as something to listen to but as something to overcome. When Lee says he would become a successful president no matter what, he seems to mean to attain his goal not according to, but in spite of, the dominant popular sentiment.
The recent makeshift personnel change had been expected after the governing camp turned to strong-arm tactics against the anti-government demonstrators. Lee was only about to wait out popular turmoil, not agonizing over how to accept the people's wishes.
It is really worrisome to think that such a self-righteous administrative style could split the nation beyond remedy. Many are expressing concerns Korea may fall back to the financial crisis of 11 years ago.
At least two elements seem to be the same as 1997 ― an economically mistaken but self-righteous president and an equally stubborn finance minister.